memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Liberator
On screen? Name source removed It could be named for any group or person which liberated another group or people. It's speculation without a mention.--31dot 18:38, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :I agree "Liberator" is a fairly generic term, but when there's an obvious possible namesake within canon, I think that should deserve a bg mention. Note that while Liberator doesn't have an article yet, the wording in the ep is somewhat suggestive of the word being used as a somewhat specific term (ie Tellarites have a clearly defined idea of what constitutes being called one of the Liberators) rather then a general description, as "humanitarian" for example would be. -- Capricorn 19:46, June 20, 2011 (UTC) If there was even just an indication or implication that the name was a reference to the Tellarites, then I wouldn't mind the statement being there, but we shouldn't assert a possible connection when we have no way of knowing if there was one or not other than through our own assumptions.--31dot 20:31, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :Tellerites have something they call Liberators, and here we have a ship called Liberator (and Starfleet ships are often named after something). I have to say, to me that seems "implication" enough. Of course, it's far from certain, and it was almost certainly not intended, but I don't really see how this is different from the notes on (well, that one might be supported by a writer statement somewhere out there) or (that connection, while not a coincidence, was probably also unplanned). -- Capricorn 21:20, June 20, 2011 (UTC) I won't use this page to analyze every similar statement on other pages, some of which may or may not be valid, but I think in this case that's not enough of a connection. It would be like saying the was named for the Andorian renegades mentioned in or the renegade Andorian forces in .--31dot 21:40, June 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Capricorn, one of the things I've been doing over the years is attempting to either cite all the various "X was named after Y" statements on MA or remove them. The fact that there are some still left doesn't mean we should be adding more speculation. See MA:NOT, point 2 under "What Memory Alpha articles are not".–Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:52, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :That's not the same. "Andorian raiders" is an ad-hoc descriptive term, while Liberator seems to be a specific term for a specific group of Tellarites (roughly in the manner of the 12 Imams, from the sound of it). In other words, while it doubles as a descriptive word on par with "renegade", it is also a term on par with terms like Dohlman or Navarch. If an Elasian ship were to be called "Dohlman" that would surely merit a note, and I think if a Federation ship is named the same as a historic group of federation citizens, even if other namesakes are also possible, that also merits a note. -- Capricorn 00:44, June 21, 2011 (UTC) :Cleanse, I'm sorry but I seem to have missed your statement when I pasted my respone back into this window. My previous post was obviously an answer to 31dot. To Cleanse, I am aware of both MA:NOT and your efforts to enforce that, and I generally agree with them, I really do, but I do continue to believe that some of these notes have merit. imo USS Sarek is right to mention Sarek, since that was obviously intentional, and to a casual fan who doesn't know Sarek its good info. But I guess there's shades of grey between such cases, and more speculative notes, and I guess that's where I tend to disagree as where to draw the line. My last post was my final argument, and I still think I have a point, but ultimatly this is the point where if no one agrees I guess that's where I stop arguing and go with the community. -- Capricorn 00:52, June 21, 2011 (UTC) At least with USS Sarek we have a character that shares that exact name, who is prominent enough to have warranted a ship being named for him. In this instance we are only assigning a connection based on a nebulous concept which could apply to any race in the Federation and where no connection is given to Tellarites. I'm not attempting to goad you into responding, I only wished to address your comment.--31dot 01:26, June 21, 2011 (UTC) :I've made peace with losing this argument, but darn you have goaded me into responding to that last point :D Take the different ships called USS Intrepid. These are ships named after a nebulous concept, yet it feels reasonable to suggest that one may have been named after another. Admittedly the fact that both are ships makes the difference. But here's my point; I just don't see how that should make a difference, on a logical basis. i.e. how one piece of circumstantial evidence more or less makes the difference between reasonable and unreasonable grounds for noting this stuff. -- Capricorn 11:55, July 4, 2011 (UTC) Although it's not the same situation(Intrepid doesn't assert it is named after a particular Intrepid explorer or whatever) I think you are possibly right about your Intrepid example; that case is (I think) largely an assumption based on the USS Enterprise lineage(which we do know is named for the previous vessels). But that can be discussed there. :) --31dot 12:05, July 4, 2011 (UTC)